this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
308 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19145 readers
2228 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Cannon seemed to invite Trump to raise the argument again at trial, where Jack Smith can't appeal, expert says

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday rejected one of former President Donald Trump’s motions to dismiss his classified documents case.

Cannon shot down Trump’s motion arguing that the Espionage Act is unconstitutionally vague when applied to a former president.

Cannon after a daylong hearing issued an order saying some of Trump’s arguments warrant “serious consideration” but wrote that no judge has ever found the statute unconstitutional. Cannon said that “rather than prematurely decide now,” she denied the motion so it could be "raised as appropriate in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions."

“The Judge’s ruling was virtually incomprehensible, even to those of us who speak ‘legal’ as our native language,” former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance wrote on Substack, calling part of her ruling “deliberately dumb.”

“The good news here is temporary,” Vance wrote. “It’s what I’d call an ugly win for the government. The Judge dismissed the vagueness argument—but just for today. She did it ‘without prejudice,’ which means that Trump’s lawyers could raise the argument again later in the case. In fact, the Judge seemed to do just that in her order, essentially inviting the defense to raise the argument again at trial.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Many, many people turned out for the primaries. Just to find their polling places closed or their name purged off registered voter roles.

People DID show up for 2016. The DNC railroaded Hillary through anyways. If you're going to remember history, remember WHY it went poorly, ffs.

[–] Hominine@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In such huge numbers right? You have evidence of this as it's not conspiracy right?

I remember this noise being made too and it had no basis back then, but again, please feel free to provide the evidence.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It wasn’t purged voting lists, it was pre-committed superdelegates for the DNC. They didn’t need to give a shit what happened at the poles.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

If you remove the super delegates from the primary, Clinton still handily beat sanders. If you give sanders every super delegate of a state of a primary he won to him, Clinton still handily beat him.

It was never close, she beat him by 12 percentage points.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I remember history. None of that happened. Bernie lost by 8M votes. This was a decade ago, move on and stop spreading Russian propaganda.

[–] Morgoon@startrek.website 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The chair of the DNC was forced to resign because the Democrats were caught conspiring against Sanders theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders "She has been forced to step aside after a leak of internal DNC emails showed officials actively favouring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders."

Sanders supporters sued the DNC and their defense was picking the Democratic nominee was free speech and that they had every right to, “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.”

Despite article IV section 5 of the DNC charter stating, "The chairperson is required to exercise impartiality and evenhandedness in the preparation and conduct of the presidential nomination process, specifically between the presidential candidates and campaigns. It is important that all parties involved adhere to these guidelines to ensure a fair and just process for all candidates."

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You'll notice and nowhere in your link does it say anything about purging voter rolls and closing polling places.

[–] Morgoon@startrek.website 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I didn't say they did? But they did argue in court that the Primaries are just a show and that they're going to nominate whomever they decide. And WikiLeaks revealed that they were conspiring against Sanders.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Thank you that was the link I was going to get too. And yes, HRC still won, but it is not arguable that the DNC didn't put their thumb on the scale for her which is - very plainly - anti-Democratic.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The only lawsuit the Sanders campaign filed was withdrawn on further clarification over use of DNC voter targeting systems. Again, you are spreading misinformation.

[–] Morgoon@startrek.website 0 points 8 months ago

I think you misread, I Said Sander's supporters filed a lawsuit. Here's the case

https://casetext.com/case/wilding-v-dnc-servs-corp